potbsfandomcom-20200213-history
User talk:Lord Alderaan
Users' Feedback to Grammar and Punctuation Edits I just decided to create an account on the wiki; and, I would like to begin making some edits. I was "drafted" to be one of the editors for my company's internal wiki since I have "the knack" for grammar. I do not know from where I get this curse. I wish I had to time to contribute to content; but, that is out of the question concerning my daily schedule. To really do the wiki justice, it takes time. But, occaisionly, I get to read some of the articles and I catch some of the errors that "normal" people overlook -- implying that I am abnormal. What I would like to know is what has been the PotBS wiki's policy on grammar and punctuation edits; and, what has been other users' response to someone editing their work? I surely do not want to start getting flamed for editing a page. -- JasonDup 04:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC) :As far as I'm concerned, anything that improves the quality of the articles is fine with me :) Personally, if I find just a single typo or grammar error in an article, I mostly don't bother correcting it unless there's something else I can add to the article to make the edit worthwhile, so to speak. Unless it's one of my articles, then I correct it anyway - I hate mistakes ;) :But I certainly wouldn't mind if someone else did that to my articles. English isn't my natural language, so there's bound to be some errors in there... : Oh, and welcome to our Wiki! --Ailar 09:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC) :: Even pure grammar and spelling errors are always welcome. Just mark them as minor. You are free to correct any mistakes. People won't feel offended if you correct them. Nobody owns an article and thus nobody should feel offended. If there is any dispute we can always talk it out on talk pages or on IRC. Welcome to the club! --Lord Alderaan 08:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Deletion Please could you process the current Category: Pages Proposed for Deletion been doing some tidying and tweaking MafooUK 19:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Done --Lord Alderaan 19:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Links to category pages, or Redirects? Hello Lord Alderaan, I've been futzing around on the PotBS wiki since I started playing and reading the forums about a week ago. I've found the wiki to be incredibly useful to my PotBS playing, and that has inspired me to really try and contribute useful information to it. I had a question about how you would like me to write links to things such as missions and outfitting. Would you rather have articles created linking to the category itself (in the manner I did in the paragraph above) or would it be better to link to a page like missions, which, since there isn't a page about missions yet, simply redirects to the Category:Missions. One advantage I see is with the redirect, someone could theoretically make a page named missions at some point in the future that provides an actual description of what missions, in general, are. Once this article is made, other articles would link properly to this description, instead of just sending the user to the generic category. Regardless of my thoughts, I'll be happy to go with whatever format you guys would prefer to use. Until I hear otherwise, I'll edit in the format you corrected with (links to categories). On the side, thank you for correcting my information at Chat. I apologize so much of it was simply incorrect, as I've only been playing the game for a week, and only as a pirate, hehe. TheMaster42 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC) : Don't worry about the mistakes. They happen. I think the not mentioning Nation chat is per region was the only one and it was minor. If I ever make a mistake I hope you return the favor :) : As to the question about missions. It doesn't really matter much. If we ever make a detailed Missions page instead of a redirect we can simply look at and look at which pages should link to the new Missions page and which should keep linking to the category. We could also simply expand the description of the category page. When I'm in doubt I go for uniformity. Since we've been reffing directly to the category until now my advice would be to follow that trend for now. --Lord Alderaan 13:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Angie's Offer of Wikia Hi Lord Alderaan, I left Mopster a message but haven't heard back from him..so decided to reach out to you. I run the Gaming Network at Wikia.com and wanted to see if this community would be interested in moving this wiki to Wikia? We host over 1,000 gaming wikis including WowWiki, Ffxiclopedia.org, Guildwiki and Halopedia. We have a small potbs wiki but there aren't many active users so you could be able to talk over that domain or keep your own. Everything would remain the same in the sense that everyone in the current community would retain their rights. The main benefits of coming to wikia are: * Free hosting and storage * A dedicated Tech team that ensure the site is always up and fast, does frequent MediaWiki upgrades. * Lots of cool new extensions and user features such as voting, widgets, wysiwyg, etc. * A Community Team to help fight vandals and spam * Marketing support to run contests, attend events, etc. Would be great to hear the communities voice on this. Please feel free to ping me at angie at wikia.com or on my talk page here Tweaking the Personal Equipment Template Hi there! I've just entered the Naval Small Sword with the type "Small Sword" - now the template needs to be adjusted so that it gets entered into Category:Swords - Small Sword automatically, as is already the case with Cutlass and Rapier (the category already exists, I just set it up). And btw: Mads Dogs and Englishmen is marked for deletion as well for the same reason (typo in the article name) Thanks! (also to Mopster for quickly deleting the wrong Category I defined) -- Ailar 16:46, 1 February 2008 (CET) : Done --Lord Alderaan 16:54, 1 February 2008 (CET) ::First, thanks for that - however, I just noticed that there's already a number of existing small swords, and they're all under Category:Swords - Dual Wield. ::Now I confess I'm a bit confused - given that "type" isn't anything that shows up ingame and is therefore a rather arbitrary categorization to start with, why weren't small swords originally entered to follow the same conventions as the cutlass and the rapier? These are in the cutlass and rapier categories - but small sword is in dual wield? Where does that come from? The Naval Small Sword doesn't say anything about dual wield in its ingame description (unless that's in the ingame help, I only checked a screenshot of the mouse-over text for the item) -- Ailar 17:05, 1 February 2008 (CET) :::To be honest I don't know. I didn't make the Sword template and neither did I add any of the swords. Try to look in the history who did it and contact them or come on IRC and discuss it with all of us. I'm sure we can find a reason or otherwise a solution. --Lord Alderaan 17:13, 1 February 2008 (CET) :::: I made the template and started with sword type instead of school. I was under the impression rapiers were for fencing, swords for florentine and cutlass for dirty fighting. If this is completely wrong and there's no real categorization the types (hard to see what type they are, used for multiple schools, etc ...) we could just stay with schools and drop the type thing. But if there's an ingame 'type' of the swords, we should used that. --Mopster 17:17, 1 February 2008 (CET) ::::: As far as I could see until now, you're correct that the various sword types each apply to certain schools. At least I haven't come across an example to the contrary yet. And that would make sense too - but it's the "dual wield" categorization that confuses me :) I noticed the first one that got entered were the Musketeer's Matching Blades, maybe they mention something about that in their description... For what it's worth, here's the ingame description for the one I entered earlier: Naval Small Sword -- Ailar 17:31, 1 February 2008 (CET) :::::: Yeah their were about 3 of them marked as dual wield and only one as small sword when I started entering a lot of swords earlier today. I changed the one marked small sword to dual weild I believe just to match the others. Your right about short sword fitting it better than dual wield, however I do not see the need for short sword, cutlass, rapier catergories since they already fit into the dirty fighting, fencing, and florentine catergories perfectly. Not to mention in game their is no reference to a type of sword other than what its called in the name. --Graig 17:36, 1 February 2008 (CET) ::::::: Yeah, I agree with that, type isn't really needed, school should be enough. Btw, lots of pages you entered today Graig - now the personal equipment inventory looks quite respectable already :) -- Ailar 17:40, 1 February 2008 (CET) :::::::: Maybe I can updated all the pages using User:PBOTs. Or we could simply remove it from the template. It wouldn't matter that pages still have the value if the template doesn't use it. --Lord Alderaan 17:43, 1 February 2008 (CET) ::::::::: Let's just remove it from the template then. --Mopster 18:04, 1 February 2008 (CET) Pointe-Ã -Pitre page deleted, yet it's still the most wanted page? Hey, you deleted the Pointe-Ã -Pitre page, yet it's still the #1 most wanted page from links. Are you going through and fixing all the pages that have links to it? I tried to do a few myself, but it seems I am not allowed to edit those pages. RagabashMoon 23:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC) : I checked the Whatlinksto to fix any pages linking there. Where do you see that Most Wanted thing? In my main page the most wanted list doesn't contain any city. If it does anywhere it might be pure stats, nothing I can change but something I'll poke the wikia staff about. --22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC) ::It's under - the correct link to see it is this one (there's a blank somewhere in the middle there...). Looks to be a glitch to me, because it points to a whole lot of map pages - but if you look at these map pages, there are no links to the defunct article at all... --Ailar 06:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Bot flag Done. -- Nef (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Last Category:Atlas edit Wow. (-: Why don't we pull city stats via FLS API and put it straight on each city page? -- Nef (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) : If you mean through the bot. Haven't gotten around to it yet :) --Lord Alderaan 07:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC) :: I was thinking about creating a parser tag . Place it inside city infobox template and let it refresh its content ajax-y. Bot wont make fresh stats. (Unless you run it 24/7... <-; ) -- Nef (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC) ::: Well the info that we would be able to retrieve right now is fairly static (except for server specific, conquest related). It's pretty much limited to Port Resources, conquerability, defaultowner and average NPC spawn level. No use updating it through ajax, or even once a day. Once every patch should be enough. It would make more sense to ajax-ize the server pages. However these are updated twice a day through the bot now. Doing this through the bot has its advantages. We don't border FLS's API with too much traffic and we can build up a history of information that might be used for stats and graphs in the future. Btw I've added an example of port information from the API below. --Lord Alderaan 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC) ::: However I do find this axaj-y stuff interesting. It sure might come in handy when the API gets more and more info (although a bot has it's advantages too). --Lord Alderaan 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC) :::: Yup, resources part is too static. What about conquest & unrest part? Does it make for an interesting info for PotBS wiki readers? -- Nef (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC) XML Example of XML: PUBLIC_DOCK ORE_SULFUR ORE_COPPER ORE_SILVER FERTILE_SOIL Farewell, and all the best Sorry to see you leave - have fun with whatever you're doing next. And thank you for all your work on this Wiki :) As for me, my recent absence hasn't had anything to do with getting bored of PotBS, I just didn't have much online time in general. I'm mostly back now though (getting a new PC next week which should be able to handle PotBS better than my current 4-year old rig), so I should be around the game and the Wiki for the time being. The point of me telling you this: with you leaving, shouldn't we think about a new batch of admins here? I've volunteered for that before, and I'm still willing. Also, I notice that Quizzical has contributed quite a lot over the last few months, and even though he hasn't been around for the past week, maybe we should ask them too... --Lord Alderaan 16:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC) You still around? According to you are still around, but it doesn't seem as there's much activity... I'm thinking of asking Wikia to adopt this Wiki, as we need at least one admin to do different tasks the regular user cant. If I don't hear from you in reasonable time I'm guessing your not active and will go forth with the adoption-process. I have also made a post about this on the forum just in case. --MiniPax 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC) User:PBOTs Hi. Could you please contact me via for the code of the bot? I'm not too familiar with PHP but have some knowledge from way back, so I'm interested in seeing how it's put together and in time maybe convert it to pywikipedia. It would certainty make my day for some of the more tedious tasks :-) --miniPax (T • • ) 11:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)